Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-02-Speech-1-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090202.16.1-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we are, I hope, all clear on what the priorities are here: energy efficiency, energy saving and renewable energy. Nevertheless, we cannot get round the fact that we will need to worry about our gas supplies for many more years yet. So, what lessons can we learn from the dispute between Ukraine and Russia, and from the crisis that arose from that dispute? In my view – and I am sorry to have to say this, Commissioner – it seems to me that we will be no better, or at least not much better, prepared the next time this happens. Neither can it be said that the crisis is over, and I have seen little sign that a strategy is really being developed, or that any conclusions have been drawn from this dispute between Ukraine and Russia.
Certain Members of this House believe that we should conclude bilateral agreements with Ukraine, but it should be pointed out that Ukraine has to bear at least some of the blame for the situation that arose recently, and I would really rather not make myself dependent on arguments between Mr Yushchenko and Mrs Tymoshenko, or Mr Yanukovych, or whoever. Ukraine would, quite naturally, clearly much rather buy the gas from Russia and then sell it on to us, naturally for an additional charge, as would Turkey in relation to Nabucco, but I will return to that later. If, then, we want our gas to be just as insecure, but more expensive, we should make a bilateral agreement but, if we want to find a real solution, we need to make a trilateral agreement encompassing Russia as the supplier, Ukraine as the transit country and ourselves, and come to an agreement in this connection, particularly with regard to transit and infrastructure. I have heard nothing from the Commission on this or on what alternative suggestions it has.
With regard to investments in infrastructure, if we look to the east, there are basically three pipelines up for discussion: Nord Stream, South Stream and Nabucco. Nord Stream is a supply pipeline in the north; it solves the transit problem, but will not reduce our dependency on Russia. South Stream may also solve a transit problem, but again will not reduce our dependency on Russia. On top of that, if one looks at the costs involved, South Stream is actually somewhat more expensive than Nabucco, at least according to a number of studies, which suggests that we need to invest massively in Nabucco. When I consider – and I have mentioned this on a few previous occasions as well, Commissioner – how quickly the United States constructed the PTCP oil pipeline and how long we are taking over the Nabucco gas pipeline, I really do think it is scandalous how little Europe has achieved: it is a sign of our weakness.
We need to act quickly, not just with regard to Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan – which we will be discussing shortly – but also in relation to Iraq. The fact that gas there is simply being released into the air as exhaust, with no consideration being given to how it could be transported to the Nabucco pipeline, really is a big mistake. I would ask you, Commissioner, to negotiate quickly and clearly with Turkey, in order to ensure that we also get their agreement to this. We will, of course, also need to convince Cyprus to stop blocking the energy chapter: their insistence that we cannot even negotiate on this chapter shows a lack of solidarity, because it quite naturally causes difficulties with Turkey. You are nodding, Commissioner; I see that we are in full agreement here.
Turning finally to nuclear energy, there are some very different opinions on this subject in this House. Unfortunately, I too cannot vote in favour of the Laperrouze report, for example because it is too one-sided in this respect.
The thing that disturbs me about this whole debate is that we now have a new development in France, namely a reduction in atomic waste, but, when you look more closely, you find that this atomic waste is more radioactive. That is not the way to solve the problem, particularly with regard to waste. We will need to apply a lot more energy and brainpower to solving the problem of waste and disposal."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples